Primary changes would boost small state influence

April 06, 2008

Republicans think their nominating race ended too quickly. Democrats fear theirs might go on forever. And though the public likes the probable presidential nominees, polls show widespread dissatisfaction with the system. "Everyone thinks this year is a mess," says Curtis Gans, who heads American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate. Now, after years of talk, GOP rules experts might finally be on the verge of making big changes in the nominating system for 2012. Starting Wednesday near Albuquerque, the 56-member Rules Committee of the Republican National Committee will consider several rival plans in the most serious effort in years to overhaul the current system of primaries and caucuses. "We have a good chance of coming up with a plan which will receive majority support," said Bob Bennett, Ohio's longtime Republican chairman and author of one proposal. "But I have no idea what that plan will be." If the panel agrees, and the national committee goes along, the proposal would go before September's Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn. And if the GOP votes for changes, the Democrats will be under pressure to go along when they consider their 2012 rules after the 2008 election. Aiding the current effort is the fact that, unlike when changes were sought in 2000, the GOP's prospective presidential nominee has stayed out of the discussion. John McCain's strategists "want something that's reasonable and fair," said Bill Crocker, the Texas Republican national committeeman and author of one of the plans. "Beyond that, they have not evidenced any interest in influencing it." In 2000, GOP officials pushed a plan to give preference to small states and delay primaries in the bigger ones. Opposition from George W. Bush and his political strategist, Karl Rove, was widely credited with killing that idea. The irony is that the new effort is taking place in a year in which Democratic participation is at an all-time high and most states are playing a part in their nominating process. But the GOP contest followed the recent pattern: McCain emerged as the front-runner after the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary and wrapped up the nomination less than a month later. "Even though our situation was as competitive as we've had for some time, it was only 35 days," said Tom Sansonetti of Wyoming, a former GOP Rules Committee chairman. Said Crocker: "Everybody thinks the primary process was a train wreck and not fair to anyone." The most likely plan is a modified version of the "Delaware plan," which the panel pushed in 2000. It would begin with the smallest states and delay primaries in the bigger ones, including Texas, thus ensuring an extended race. Another plan would adopt a proposal by the nation's secretaries of states for rotating regional primaries. Crocker's plan would divide the states in a more random order. Bennett has proposed an amalgam of several proposals. One perennial sticking point is whether to keep Iowa and New Hampshire at the head of the calendar. "I don't think they're valid statistical samples of anything," said Crocker, an Austin lawyer. But Bennett would start with Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada and then have primaries or caucuses in 15 small states before moving to the others. "You should have a place where retail politics should mean something," he said. "You're not going to do that in a state like Ohio or Texas, where it becomes a media campaign." One factor spurring action is the fear that, without changes, the pressure that prompted some 23 states to schedule primaries or caucuses on Feb. 5 this year will spread in 2012. "You will have a national primary," Bennett said. Reform foes note that the party that picks a nominee soonest is more likely to win the fall election. But others believe the GOP would benefit from a system that gives a role to more voters in more states. Carl P. Leubsdorf is Washington bureau chief of the Dallas Morning News. Carl Leubsdorf